Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

NOBL vs XLY: how they differ

NOBL and XLY hold 3% of their weight in the same names, and NOBL returned more over the year.

ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, NOBL and XLY hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions NOBL and XLY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingNOBLXLY
McDonald's Corp.1.36%4.16%
Lowe's Cos., Inc.1.25%3.08%
Genuine Parts Co.1.26%0.40%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in NOBLOnly in XLY
Nucor Corp. 1.77%Amazon.com Inc 22.24%
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. 1.73%Tesla Inc 19.66%
International Business Machines Corp. 1.71%Home Depot Inc/The 5.83%
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 1.68%TJX Cos Inc/The 3.93%
Franklin Resources, Inc. 1.67%Booking Holdings Inc 3.44%
Colgate-Palmolive Co. 1.62%Starbucks Corp 2.90%
Caterpillar, Inc. 1.61%Marriott International Inc/MD 2.02%
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1.61%Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 1.97%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

NOBL and XLY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
NOBL
ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
XLY
State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerProSharesState Street
What it isS&P 500 Dividend AristocratsConsumer discretionary
Total return, 1 year+9.4%−4.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−8.1 pts−21.6 pts
Expense ratio0.35%0.08%
Already in the S&P 500100.0%100.0%
Holdings6947

NOBL in plain words

NOBL is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +9.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 69 positions, with the top ten at 16.6%. It sat 4.8% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

XLY in plain words

XLY is an index equity fund tracking the Consumer discretionary. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −4.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 47 positions, with the top ten at 69.2%. It sat 8.9% below its high of Jan 12, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, NOBL or XLY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, NOBL returned +9.4% and XLY returned −4.1%, so NOBL returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, NOBL or XLY?
NOBL charges 0.35% a year and XLY charges 0.08%, so XLY is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do NOBL and XLY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 100% of NOBL and 100% of XLY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 3% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

NOBL against XLY, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, NOBL against XLY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/NOBL-XLY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources